SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2013 18:08:21 GMT -5
With Adam LaRoche re-signing with the Nats, Morse in now expendable. MLBTR reports that the Nats are seeking left-handed relievers and/or prosepects in enchange for Morse.
The sox currently have a log-jam in the bullpen, especially if Bard returns to form, and they have three good lefties. (Morales, Breslow, Miller) With the Dempster signing, Morales likely remains in the bullpen. One of these three lefties could be dealt along with a prospect for Mike Morse. I was thinking maybe a lower level prospect, such as Jacobs, Swihart, Cecchini, or an A-ball pitcher. (I hope Cecchini will stay though) With Lavarnway and Ross on the roster, even Saltalamacchia could be dealt. If a lefty was dealt, the Sox still have the option of re-signing Rich Hill.
If a deal like this is completed, the Red Sox could completely abandon the Mike Napoli contract and go with Morse at first. Morse is a power-hitting right-handed hitter who should fit well at Fenway Park. The only problem with this deal is that Morse is entering a contract year and may require big money after becoming a free agent. So this deal would not make sense unless the Sox have the idea of extending or re-signing Morse. It would only make sense to re-sign him if the money and years were reasonable.
Please reply for your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Jan 8, 2013 18:18:53 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2013 18:20:32 GMT -5
No thanks. I think I'd rather try out what we already have instead. Do you mean Napoli or an internal option?
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Jan 8, 2013 18:38:02 GMT -5
What am I supposed to be looking at here? He's been as good of a hitter as Napoli over the last three years, he's cheaper, and he doesn't require a multi-year commitment. Honestly, given what's available next off season for first basemen I would still prefer signing Napoli, but I can see a pretty legitimate case for trading for Morse.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jan 8, 2013 18:59:22 GMT -5
he's cheaper, and he doesn't require a multi-year commitment. Said differently, he's far more expensive than Napoli because he costs talent that we can't spare instead of just cash, and he's only under contract for one year. Short contracts are fine for overpriced free agents, but if the Sox trade away talent I want a return that will be with the team for a while.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 8, 2013 20:50:57 GMT -5
Morse has nice power but he doesn't walk very much (career .347 OBP, .345 the last three years). Much of his success is based off a high BABIP (last three years: .339, .344, .330; career .344), but he's not exactly a burner so he's sustained that high BABIP through making good, hard contact, which he will probably sustain. Over the past three years, Morse and Napoli are comparable hitters (Napoli is a hair better-- 134 to 133 wRC+) and Bill James projects them to have similar 2013s (.360 wOBA for Morse, .359 for Napoli). However, he's no better of a defender than Napoli, is only five months younger, and has a similarly lengthy injury history.
If you presume that Morse and Napoli are similar players, it then comes down to whether you prefer one year, $7m plus trade compensation or three years, $39m. If it's for spare parts (i.e. Miller and a non-top-15 prospect) and Napoli's hip injury is serious enough, I would prefer Morse. If Morse has a good 2013, he'll get the qualifying option and either re-sign or net a pick. If his 2013 isn't good enough to be worth the QO, we'll be glad he's not on a long-term deal. Plus, the 1B free agent pool next year has some reasonably interesting options (Konerko, Morales, Morneau, Morse) and other trade options will likely emerge.
I wouldn't do the deal if Napoli's injury is not a big deal, though. The Red Sox can afford an AAV overpay if the years are short, and Napoli on a three-year deal is just about ideal for the situation the Red Sox are in. Plus, giving up a prospect in the Cecchini/Swihart/Owens tier for what is probably a one-year rental with the Red Sox only in fringe playoff contention is a bad idea if there are other viable options (read: Napoli).
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jan 9, 2013 7:04:13 GMT -5
If you presume that Morse and Napoli are similar players, it then comes down to whether you prefer one year, $7m plus trade compensation or three years, $39m. If it's for spare parts (i.e. Miller and a non-top-15 prospect) and Napoli's hip injury is serious enough, I would prefer Morse. If Morse has a good 2013, he'll get the qualifying option and either re-sign or net a pick. If his 2013 isn't good enough to be worth the QO, we'll be glad he's not on a long-term deal. Plus, the 1B free agent pool next year has some reasonably interesting options (Konerko, Morales, Morneau, Morse) and other trade options will likely emerge. I wouldn't do the deal if Napoli's injury is not a big deal, though. The Red Sox can afford an AAV overpay if the years are short, and Napoli on a three-year deal is just about ideal for the situation the Red Sox are in. Plus, giving up a prospect in the Cecchini/Swihart/Owens tier for what is probably a one-year rental with the Red Sox only in fringe playoff contention is a bad idea if there are other viable options (read: Napoli). I agree totally with jmei. Frankly, given the Red Sox's situation, Morse fits. We don't want everyone on the same 3/39 contract, and this would provide more flexibility in terms of trades, free agents, going forward. I don't know what's going on with Napoli, but if that deal isn't (wink wink) done, I think the Red Sox have to explore the price for Morse. A Miller-Linares deal looks right to me.
|
|
|
Post by paullee on Jan 9, 2013 23:31:51 GMT -5
I also agree with jmei. Morse is worth to the Red Sox with one year left on his contract is a guy like Miller and low level prospect. If we are giving a Miller and a Cecchini/Swihart/Owens then we should get Morse and a prospect coming our way that BC likes. Why don't teams trade prospect for prospects more? To fill a position of weakness we could trade a prospect where we have depth for another team's prospect that they have depth at. It seems to me a good GM could really shine if they were good at these transactions.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 10, 2013 6:36:29 GMT -5
I also agree with jmei. Morse is worth to the Red Sox with one year left on his contract is a guy like Miller and low level prospect. If we are giving a Miller and a Cecchini/Swihart/Owens then we should get Morse and a prospect coming our way that BC likes. Why don't teams trade prospect for prospects more? To fill a position of weakness we could trade a prospect where we have depth for another team's prospect that they have depth at. It seems to me a good GM could really shine if they were good at these transactions. I wouldn't trade any of those three prospects for a one year rental of Mike Morse. I'd rather go the Justin Smoak route before I go that route. Ultimately, the Sox will sign Napoli and this thread will be irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by dcri on Jan 10, 2013 11:24:59 GMT -5
The Nationals probably will get a better deal from another team than Miller and a low-value prospect. The Red Sox shouldn't give up more unless the Napoli deal falls through.
In any case, I think the Yankees, most likely, are going to try harder to get him than the Red Sox should.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Jan 10, 2013 12:12:45 GMT -5
No way BC gives up one of Swihart/Cecchini/Owens for one year of 30 year old Mike Morse.
Miller + Britton would probably interest them a bit, but I'm not sure it gets it done. Britton is probably the best spec that I am willing to part with for Morse.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jan 10, 2013 13:00:30 GMT -5
No way BC gives up one of Swihart/Cecchini/Owens for one year of 30 year old Mike Morse. Miller + Britton would probably interest them a bit, but I'm not sure it gets it done. Britton is probably the best spec that I am willing to part with for Morse. I agree with this. I would be fine with Miller and Britton, Sean Coyle, or Chris Hernandez. I might be ok with Brandon Jacobs in the packafe. Maybe that's not enough to get Morse. In that case, I do not want Morse.
|
|
|
Post by justen on Jan 11, 2013 8:08:21 GMT -5
16 walks in 406 AB's, yikes.
Much prefer Smoak who's got a a little better plate discipline and some possible upside left in him.
Morse has swung at 34% of pitches outside the zone throughout his career, while not seeing any improvement in the last few years at 36.5%, 38%, 36%. He can't be far from decline and is really a boom or bust type hitter.
Smoak had comparable ISO and LD%, hits less GB's and I think he's bound to start hitting them where they're not, especially in a small Fenway Park.
Now way i give up valuable prospects for a close-to-decline free swinger.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 11, 2013 12:51:14 GMT -5
Yes, Smoak has been able to walk at a decent clip, but he's done nothing else well. After 1421 PAs, his career .256 BABIP is looking less like a fluke and more like bad contact. Smoak did have a great September after he reportedly made some mechanical adjustments, but it's hard to tell whether those adjustments will stick or whether it was just small sample size success.
Morse swings at a lot of bad pitches, but he has shown a consistent ability to put up a high BABIP over his career while hitting for power and putting up decent on-base numbers. Smoak is under team control for longer and might have some upside, but there's no question that Morse is almost certainly a better hitter in 2013.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 11, 2013 13:01:06 GMT -5
Smoak had comparable ISO and LD%, hits less GB's and I think he's bound to start hitting them where they're not, especially in a small Fenway Park. Also, what am I missing here? Career ISO, Morse: .197 (last four years: .180, .247, .229, .231) Career ISO, Smoak: .153 (career road ISO: .168) Career LD%, Morse: 19.5% Career LD%, Smoak: 18% And yes, Smoak hits a lot more fly balls (41.6% to 32.3%), but a large percent of the difference between the two is Smoak's astronomical number of infield fly balls, which are outs almost all the time. Smoak's infield fly ball % is 12.8%, compared to Morse's 6.5%.
|
|
|
Post by Legion of Bloom on Jan 16, 2013 20:03:22 GMT -5
Morse traded to Seattle in a 3-team deal. Jaso to the A's, Cole and others to the Nats. Details on who else Washington is getting are not available yet. As it stands, I like this move for Oaklan. I assume Beane will continue to rely on platoons, worked out pretty well for them last year.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 16, 2013 20:13:46 GMT -5
Why did Seattle trade for Morse? Do they think they're going to be competitive in 2013? I know they have a tough time getting free agent hitters to sign there, but Morse is a free agent in a year and is no more than above-average at his best, and they gave up a promising young catcher in return.
The Nationals got a better player than I thought they would for Morse in Cole, but his high upside is balanced by lots of risk. The Red Sox reportedly inquired on Morse, but they weren't going to offer a package better than what Washington got.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jan 17, 2013 8:54:29 GMT -5
Why did Seattle trade for Morse? They must think that he'll either re-sign, or be worth a qualifying offer. Otherwise this makes no sense, yet (could be more to come I guess).
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 17, 2013 9:52:53 GMT -5
Why did Seattle trade for Morse? Do they think they're going to be competitive in 2013? I know they have a tough time getting free agent hitters to sign there, but Morse is a free agent in a year and is no more than above-average at his best, and they gave up a promising young catcher in return. The Nationals got a better player than I thought they would for Morse in Cole, but his high upside is balanced by lots of risk. The Red Sox reportedly inquired on Morse, but they weren't going to offer a package better than what Washington got. You know that Jaso is 29, right? I'm not saying that to be flippant - you're on the ball, so when you say they traded a "promising young catcher" my first thought is "jmei thinks Jaso is younger than he is." Jaso's a nice player with good on-base skills (and such an obvious Oakland Athletic that I probably should've wagered money on this) but he's not really any more likely to be part of the next good Mariners team than Morse is. They have Zunino on the horizon. Also, Jaso was miserable in 2011. It's possible that they think his value was at a peak, and they can get a solid first baseman for him. The bigger problem, short term: This probably means Morales is the designated hitter in 2013, which means they may continue pretending Montero is a catcher. I'm still a believer in Montero's bat (.295/.330/.438 on the road as a 22-year-old), but he isn't a catcher. Tremendous trade for the Nationals. Traded a first baseman they didn't need for a high-upside young pitcher. The high-risk is there, yes, but they're in the perfect position to take that risk. Even if Cole doesn't pan out, the deal doesn't really hurt them.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 17, 2013 10:15:04 GMT -5
You're right-- I thought Jaso was younger than he was and a better defender than he is. That said, Morse still makes no sense for Seattle given their current roster and you have to think they could have gotten a better trade return or at least one that fit their likely rebuilding better.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 17, 2013 10:21:30 GMT -5
Tremendous trade for the Nationals. Traded a first baseman they didn't need for a high-upside young pitcher. The high-risk is there, yes, but they're in the perfect position to take that risk. Even if Cole doesn't pan out, the deal doesn't really hurt them. And given the Nationals' familiarity with Cole, it's entirely possible they think they know what went wrong with him and that they can fix it.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 17, 2013 10:34:50 GMT -5
And given the Nationals' familiarity with Cole, it's entirely possible they think they know what went wrong with him and that they can fix it. Agreed. Also, seeing how Cole cruised through the Midwest League, I'm not sure anything went wrong with him other than the California League is a miserable, miserable place for a pitching prospect. He gave up 7 home runs in 38 innings there, and has given up 13 home runs in 185 innings in his other pro stops. You're right-- I thought Jaso was younger than he was and a better defender than he is. That said, Morse still makes no sense for Seattle given their current roster and you have to think they could have gotten a better trade return or at least one that fit their likely rebuilding better. Perhaps one that fits the roster better, but I think Morse is simple a better player than Jaso all else being equal. Simply getting better players isn't a bad way to start the rebuilding process. There may be other moving parts here, and I can't fault a team for simply upgrading the talent level, even if the new talent doesn't fill an obvious need. I can see your side though. I'd think there would have been at least some market for Jaso, and unless they plan to use Morse or Morales in the outfield, it seems like they already have a stock of 1B/DH types. Plus, I'm not sure the Mariners deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to having an overarching plan.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jan 17, 2013 10:39:43 GMT -5
If you're the Mariners, don't you just trade Jaso for Cole? I'm starting to believe that "new market inefficiency = GMs on the hot seat" thing.
|
|
|
Post by The Town Sports Cards on Jan 17, 2013 10:44:21 GMT -5
According to MLB depth charts, the Mariners lineup looks something like this: C Montero 1B Smoak 2B Ackley SS Ryan 3B Seager LF Morse CF Gutierrez RF Saunders DH Morales BN Unsigned Backup Catcher BN Andino BN Ibanez/Bay/Carp BN Ibanez/Bay/Carp
Really if they cut Bay during ST, they don't have that big of a crunch. While I agree that Montero is a subpar defensive catcher, I'm pretty sure SEA is willing to take the defensive hit to put together a lineup that for once isn't one of the worst in the league.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 17, 2013 11:01:18 GMT -5
Montero isn't just a bad defensive catcher though, by our usual standards. He looks like if they put a catchers mitt on David Ortiz or Frank Thomas and said "go get 'em." His footwork and receiving are like that of someone who ended having to play there in an emergency because the three catchers on the roster got injured. We get pretty spoiled by the high level of play at the catcher position, to the point where someone like Saltalamacchia or Mike Piazza can be considered below average, even though the differences between them and an average catcher are pretty subtle. That drop-off isn't subtle with Montero. You can see without paying much attention that he's out of place at the position. He's like Carlos Delgado. For years, coming through the minors, the Blue Jays tried to convince themselves that they could make him into a catcher, and how amazing his bat would play up at that position. While obviously they were right about how he would've been an amazing hitter for a catcher, they finally had to face the undeniable truth that he couldn't catch. Montero has reached the same point in his career, and his bat has the same upside as Delgado's. It's not like Ryan Lavarnway, whose bat would be fringy at another position, Montero's bat will play at first base or DH. The only thing the Mariners would be doing now by putting him at catcher is increasing the chance that he'll hurt himself. If you're the Mariners, don't you just trade Jaso for Cole? I'm starting to believe that "new market inefficiency = GMs on the hot seat" thing. That's a good question. I mean, the Mariners are pretty deep in terms of pitching prospects, but still, given the high attrition rate, you'd think they'd want all of the young arms they can get their hands on. I mean, I actually like Morse, but it's hard to argue he fits the Mariners better than Cole would. Maybe we're all overthinking this though, and Zduriencik just isn't a very good GM, hot seat or not.
|
|
|